Farmworkers fight firings, harassment

[Communist]

.
Farmworkers fight firings, harassment (http://www.workers.org/2010/us/farmworkers_0225/)

By Kathy Durkin
Feb 18, 2010

The year is 2010. Yet discrimination against and exploitation of the workers who grow and harvest our food supply continues today and in its vilest forms — against immigrants and women.

When a young woman farmworker was sexually harassed and abused at a Giumarra Vineyards Corporation facility in Edison, Calif., her co-workers came to her aid and objected to her treatment.

The day after they reported the incident, the company retaliated against the woman and her supporters by firing all of them. They are all Indigenous people who traveled from Mexico to toil in these fields for their economic survival and that of their families.

The United Farm Workers union reports that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has just filed a lawsuit against Giumarra Vineyards “for violating federal law by sexually harassing a teenage female farmworker” and retaliating against farmworkers who witnessed the abuse and reported it to company officials. (ufw.org)

Giumarra Vineyards Corporations is the largest U.S. grape-growing company, with 2,500 employees. The workers pick one out of every 10 bunches of grapes in this country. Giumarra/Nature’s Partner is one of the biggest global table-grape-producing companies, distributing and marketing fruit and vegetables from all over the world.

This voracious, capitalist enterprise carries out rampant abuse of its workforce to maximize profits and quash any resistance. For several years, Giumarra workers in the U.S. have been working with the UFW to win a union contract to stop this agro-industrial giant from mistreating its employees and to protect the workers’ basic human rights.

The UFW explains: “The company has a long history of intimidating and bullying workers and violating their rights ... .” Not only did the company interfere with a union election in 2006, but the UFW says, “Two farmworkers died of heat-related causes while laboring in Giumarra’s fields.” (ufw.org)

The UFW is circulating an online petition and asks supporters to sign it and send it out as widely as possible. It defends the woman worker who charged harassment and her supportive co-workers and demands an end to sexual harassment and retaliation against workers who protest their horrific working conditions and who support the UFW. Visit ufw.org to sign on.

A delegation of women leaders will present the petition to Giumarra/Nature’s Partner and try to meet with company representatives in February.

____________________



©1995-2010 Workers World (http://wwppitt.weebly.com/).
Verbatim copying and distribution
of this entire article is permitted in
any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved.

[Communist]

.
After more than a decade of struggle
African-American farmers win compensation (http://www.workers.org/2010/us/african-american_farmers_0304/)

By Abayomi Azikiwe Editor, Pan-African News Wire
Feb 25, 2010

On Feb. 18, the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced the latest settlement to provide compensation and resources to African-American farmers. An organization that represents African-American farmers, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund — founded in 1967 — welcomed the announced settlement.

Demonstrations took place during February in support of the demands put forward by African-American farmers seeking an end to land loss and the racist policies of the USDA, which have driven millions of people from the rural areas of the South for decades. Rallies were held in Washington, D.C.; Little Rock, Ark.; Memphis, Tenn.; Jackson, Miss.; Montgomery, Ala.; Columbus, Ga.; Columbia, S.C.; and Richmond, Va.

The farmers were demanding a resolution to the 1999 legal settlement which was supposed to provide compensation for decades of systematic discrimination by the USDA. However, the federal bureaucracy placed enormous roadblocks to the farmers receiving settlement funds.

Only 15,000 African-American farmers were able to navigate the complicated paperwork to collect compensation reported to have averaged a mere $50,000 per family. Most of the farmers were excluded, and in 2008 the U.S. Congress acknowledged the problems and granted additional time for another 70,000 people to apply for compensation.

Despite this supposed commitment to speed up the processing of applications for compensation, Congress cut $1.5 billion in funding that President Barack Obama had included in the first budget of the current administration and specifically designated for Black farmers. Obama has included a similar amount in the budget for the next fiscal year that is now going before the Congress.

According to Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, “The primary issue now, I think, is that there’s not money appropriated to pay the successful claimants.” Despite the fact that the Democratic Party controls both houses of Congress, there is no real commitment to address the problems of African-American farmers.

In a demonstration outside the USDA on Feb. 15, John Boyd, the National Black Farmers Association president, presented legislators with 538 ears of corn and packets of forget-me-not seeds, demanding that each member of the House of Representatives and Senate include the $1.5 billion in the 2010 budget for compensation. “Our long journey to justice should now come to a successful close,” said Boyd.

Boyd continued by stating, “We have endured many hardships, waited many years and traveled many miles. Now it’s time for Congress to do its part and fund fairness for black farmers. Thousands of farmers who can’t be in Washington showed their support by traveling long distances through snow and rain to join our rallies. We’re here to represent them and get the job done.” (PRWEB, Feb. 15)

In a Feb. 4 press conference, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to a question related to the ongoing plight of African-American farmers. Gibbs said, “Clearly, it’s something important to him [Obama]. It’s been an issue that has been worked on by the federal government now in several different administrations and dating back many years. Obviously, ensuring that justice is done is important in this situation.” (PRWEB, Feb. 15)

Fund spokesperson Heather Gray said of the recent settlement: “After years of negotiations and questions, for Black farmers who have never been able to have their claims of discrimination against the United States Department of Agriculture settled, there is finally some hope. The Obama administration and attorneys representing Black farmers have reached a settlement in the second phase of the lawsuit originally filed by Black farmers against the USDA in 1999.” (The Federation/LAF, Feb. 18)

According to the Fund executive director, Ralph Paige: “The long-awaited settlement in this second phase of the Pigford lawsuit is a major step forward. The $1.25 billion settlement proposed by the Obama administration is a vast improvement over the $100 million offered by Congress in the 2008 Farm Bill. Now there is hope that the thousands of black farmers whose cases have been pending can receive awards and damages after decades of discrimination.”

A history of discrimination and land loss

The plight of African-American farmers is by no means a new phenomenon and the claims against the federal government did not originate in the lawsuit filed during the 1990s. This problem stems from the legacy of slavery, the failure of reconstruction and the ongoing discriminatory practices of the USDA and the banks.

Although the abolitionist movement fought for decades to end slavery, it would take a bloody 4-year Civil War to bring about the collapse of this institution rooted in the extreme exploitation and oppression of four million people of African descent. The question of what provisions would be made for the former slaves, as well as for so-called free Africans, was discussed during the war but was never formally settled.

In 1862 some Union army generals began to break up plantations in liberated areas of the South and provide settlements for small African farmers.

In 1865 the first Freedmen’s Bureau Act developed plans for 40-acre plots of land to be sold to former slaves at cheap rates. This land would have come from evacuated plantations and areas that were unsettled during this period.

Nonetheless, by late 1865, President Andrew Johnson halted these initiatives by the Union army to allocate small farm settlements for the former slaves. Another agreement that was adopted in 1866 also made proposals for land redistribution, but these actions lacked an effective enforcement mechanism and consequently went largely unimplemented.

With the lack of governmental commitment to land redistribution in the South, the acquisition of farms by African Americans took place on a largely individual basis. Many African Americans were able to acquire land as a result of the dire economic conditions prevailing in the South after the Civil War.

In a study issued by Bruce J. Reynolds in 2002 entitled “Black Farmers in America, 1865-2000: The Pursuit of Independent Farming and the Role of Cooperatives,” Reynolds says that “W.E.B. DuBois estimated 19th century progress in land ownership by black farmers: 3 million acres in 1875, 8 million in 1890, and 12 million in 1900. The Census of Agriculture shows a steady increase in the number of farm operators owning land in the South from 1880 to 1890 and again in 1900, but does not distinguish between white and nonwhite owners until 1900. Census figures show 1920 was the peak year in the number of nonwhite owners of farmland in the South. In terms of acreage owned, the census shows 1910 as the peak year for the South. More than 12.8 million acres were fully and partly owned, respectively, by 175,290 and 43,177 nonwhite farmers.”

Yet the rise of terrorist organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the abandonment of reconstruction by the federal government left African-American farmers and their families open to systematic campaigns by the racists that drove many people off their farms through force of arms and the implementation of state laws that favored the former slave-owning elites. This process would continue well into the 20th century, resulting in the loss of millions of acres of land acquired by African Americans in the South.

These efforts to drive independent African-American farmers off their land was coupled with the systematic denial of credit and the corporatization of agricultural land that took hold during latter years of the 20th century. More farmers began to look toward cooperative agriculture as a means to maintain their livelihoods and access to land.

However, as Reynolds points out: “The population of independent farmers is declining through farm consolidations and through contracting systems that diminish decision-making requirements of farmers. As this trend continues, the usefulness of cooperatives, as well as the capacity of farmers to organize them, will decline.”

By 1992, the U.S. Census of Agriculture reported that there were only 18,000 African-American farmers remaining and land ownership was down to 2.3 million acres. Since the early 1990s the conditions for African-American farmers have worsened with the burgeoning economic crisis that has disproportionately affected nationally oppressed groups in the U.S.

The plight of African-American farmers constitutes an integral part of the overall question of national oppression in the U.S. It is inextricably linked to the economic crisis and its impact on African Americans, resulting in millions of job losses and home foreclosures.

Consequently, the fight for justice for African-American farmers must be raised alongside other demands, including a real jobs program to employ the tens of millions of workers who are bearing the brunt of the deepening economic crisis in the world capitalist system.

___________________________



Articles ©1995-2010 Workers World (http://wwppitt.weebly.com/).
Verbatim copying and distribution
of this entire article is permitted in
any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved.

[Communist]

.
After three-year foreclosure struggle
Historic mint farm remains in family’s hands (http://www.workers.org/2010/us/mint_farm_0304/)

Feb 25, 2010

After a nearly three-year struggle, owners of the Crosby Mint Farm were able to purchase back most of their historic farm from Greenstone Farm Credit Services, the bank that seized the farm on Aug. 28 from farmers Peppermint Jim Crosby and Linette Crosby. The Crosby siblings endured foreclosure, attacks on their Web site, a sheriff’s sale, eviction and an auction of their farm before finally getting their farm back.

The 140-acre Crosby Mint Farm is the oldest continuously running mint farm in the United States and is located in the rural community of St. Johns, Mich., 20 miles north of Lansing, the state capital. Known as “Mint City USA,” the St. Johns area once had 60 farms, but only four remain today. In operation since 1912, the Crosby Mint Farm was established by Jim and Linette’s great-grandfather. Today, the farm is operated on a 100 percent organic basis with no pesticides, fungicides or herbicides.

The Mint Farm’s troubles began in 2006. At that time, the Crosbys had four loans outstanding with Greenstone FCS, which were backed by the Farm Service Agency, a government agency similar to the Federal Housing Administration. When the annual payment for one loan was late, the bank called in all four loans, forcing the farm into “restructuring” through Chapter 12 bankruptcy.

Greenstone FCS convinced the judge to freeze the farm’s cash, which, according to Peppermint Jim, “meant that 100 percent of all farm revenue went to the bank, nothing to live on, pay light and heating bills, or buy bottle inventory (for mint oil sales) to keep and maintain our customers.”

The fightback begins

The Crosbys began to defend their farm. According to Peppermint Jim: “For three weeks I stayed up round the clock, always having my sister or me on the farm in case the bank came in before we could file for protection. We had gated up the farm with large telephone poles creating only one point of entry, since our attorney had worked against these same folks in the past and knew what they were able to do. In that particular case they had repossessed the farmer’s equipment during the negotiations and he had to pay to get his equipment back. We pulled keys, disconnected batteries, posted signs and set up a tight perimeter with a clear view of both entrances with the back somewhat protected by a large ditch every night.”

Meanwhile, Linette Crosby began exploring ways to find support. Her son advised that she “go grassroots — deep grassroots. Stay away from the politicians.” Interviews on radio and TV shows were arranged. The Mint Farm story appeared in newspapers and magazines around the U.S. Public support grew.

In early 2008, Linette attended a Moratorium NOW! Coalition to Stop Foreclosures, Evictions, and Utility Shutoffs meeting in Detroit to explain the situation and get support. In August 2008, coalition organizers went to the farm to help with outreach at the Annual Mint Parade in St. Johns.

Organizers arrived the night before and camped out on the farm. A month later Linette spoke at a statewide rally in Lansing in support of the demand for a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions.

The sheriff’s sale took place on Aug. 14, 2008. The Crosby Farm continued to press forward, drawing increased interest and attention from around the country. A Web site, getmint.com, was established to generate mint oil sales, crucial to raising funds to pay off the bank. The site was attacked several times by an unknown party, hampering sales considerably.

With the eviction imminent in August 2009, local supporters stepped up the struggle. The Mint Jam, a benefit music festival, was held on the farm. For two weeks prior to the eviction, daily protests were held in front of the St. Johns office of Greenstone FCS.

The Moratorium NOW! Coalition was invited to attend the protest before the Mint Jam. A press release was issued stating that supporters from Detroit would be arriving, which caused Greenstone FCS to shut down its local office for the day.

When the eviction took place on Aug. 28, over 75 supporters arrived at the Mint Farm to help the Crosbys move. A caravan of 25 vehicles carried their possessions to a temporary home offered for free for the first month by another supporter.

Mint Farm returned

An auction took place in December where the farm was split into a 100- and a 40-acre parcel and bids from other people were accepted by the bank. The Crosbys’ bid, submitted in September and rejected by Greenstone FCS, was higher. By law, the Crosby Farm had “the right of first refusal” to purchase both parcels. Another farmer stepped forward to purchase the 100-acre parcel, with all of the buildings, on behalf of the Crosby Farm, and on Feb. 5 the farm reverted back to the Crosbys’ control.

A press release stated: “The brother and sister extend a message of gratitude out to all the supporters, friends, customers and family. ... This experience has changed our lives forever. It has confirmed our belief in the power of community.”

During the closing process, a lawyer jokingly asked, “You’re not going to have picketers outside are you?” in obvious recognition of the effect that the mass struggle had in winning back the farm.

__________________________





©1995-2010 Workers World (http://wwppitt.weebly.com/).
Verbatim copying and distribution
of this entire article is permitted in
any medium without royalty provided
this notice is preserved.

[the last donut of the night]

I really think that the Left tends to focus more on urban struggles and not enough on farmers' issues. Thanks for this.

[Wolf Larson]

One reason the capitalists want them to be "illegal" workers [human beings]. One reason we need land reform/viable attacks on property law in South America. NAFTA and CAFTA have taken much land and other means of production from once independent South Americans in so giving them no other choice but to come up here in order to be exploited by a capitalist in order to provide sustenance for their families.

[Communist]

http://img.getactivehub.com/08/custom_images/Uawire/bnr_uawire01.jpg (http://www.unionvoice.org/Uawire/home.html)

No one should be subjected to sexual harassment – especially teenage girls who pick grapes. Nor should anyone be fired for standing up for a victim. But that’s just what happened at Giumarra Vinyards in California.

It’s why the United Farm Workers (http://www.ufw.org/) is asking for help. The U.S. Employment Opportunity Commission (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-13-10.cfm) has filed suit (http://www.ufw.org/pdf/EEOCComplaint.pdf) against Giumarra, the world’s largest table grape company, alleging that it violated federal law when it fired a young woman for reporting the abuse and her co-workers who came to her defense.

Giumarra, and its Nature's Partner label, harvests approximately 1 out of every 10 bunches of grapes picked in the U.S. Because the company is so huge, its behavior helps set the industry standard.

It has a long history of intimidating workers and violating their rights and it’s one of the reasons workers there want to join the United Farm Workers. What happened to this vulnerable teenager and the others who simply came to her defense was reprehensible and illegal.

The UFW has begun an online petition (http://action.ufw.org/page/s/eeoc). A delegation of women leaders will hand it in to Giumarra/Nature's Partner and attempt to meet with this company soon. Please consider helping them out and send Giumarra a strong message that you will not tolerate this behavior.

[Communist]

.
Black Farmers Forgotten Again (http://www.southernstudies.org/2010/03/black-farmers-forgotten-again.html)

Sue Sturgis
Facing South
March 29, 2010


The Obama administration reached a historic $1.25
billion settlement last month in a long-standing lawsuit
over decades of racial discrimination against African-
American farmers by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The agreement depended on Congress approving funding by
March 31, and an amendment to do so was introduced by
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.). But on Friday, Congress
adjourned for a two-week Easter recess without
appropriating the money, leaving the deal in doubt.

The agreement stipulated that if lawmakers failed to act
by the end of this month, farmers could reject the
agreement and pursue a new one.

John Boyd Jr., a Virginia farmer who heads the National
Black Farmers Association, placed the blame for the
missed deadline squarely on the president, telling
Reuters that Obama failed to show the necessary
leadership to get Congress to act.

"The president didn't help us finish the job," Boyd
said.

The 2008 Farm Bill provided for $100 million in
payments, and since then black farmers have been waiting
-- and fighting -- for the rest of the money. Earlier
this year, the NBFA held demonstrations in Washington as
well as historically black farming areas of the South
including Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia to press for action.

The settlement was announced on Feb. 18 by U.S. Attorney
General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom
Vilsack.

"With the settlement announced today, USDA and the
African American farmers who brought this litigation can
move on to focus on their future," Holder said at the
time. "The plaintiffs can move forward and have their
claims heard -- with the federal government standing not
as an adversary, but as a partner."

The settlement came in a class-action lawsuit originally
filed against the USDA in 1997 by Timothy Pigford, a
North Carolina farmer who sought to buy his own land
after farming on rented acreage for years. He was turned
down for a loan by the Farmers Home Administration, an
agency with roots in the Great Depression that serves as
a lender of last resort.

The local committees created by the agency to decide who
got loans were often made up only of whites
unsympathetic to the needs of black farmers. After
having his loan request rejected, Pigford lost his home.

Investigations found that black farmers were denied
loans or given smaller loans than requested more often
than whites. They also found that black farmers were
foreclosed on more aggressively than white farmers.

A $1 billion settlement in the original Pigford case was
reached in 1999, with more than 13,000 farmers receiving
payments of $50,000. That was then expanded into Pigford
II to include thousands of other black farmers who were
excluded from the first suit. It's thought that as many
as 70,000 farmers could qualify for payments under the
latest settlement.

Last week, Boyd noted that the appropriation deadline
was approaching and that thousands of black farmers were
anxiously watching the calendar -- and President Obama.

"He looked real good and sounded very good and strong on
health care this past week and we really need that same
type of fire," Boyd said in a statement issued last
Tuesday. "So I'm calling on the President to take
immediate action and to finish the job that he started
and bring justice to the black farmers."

Rep. Artur Davis (D-Ala.) and Sen. Thad Cochran (R-
Miss.) are among the lawmakers taking steps to ensure
action is taken on the settlement when Congress returns
on April 12, the Montgomery Advertiser reports.

The farmers' lawsuit originally sought $2.5 billion.
However, the plaintiffs accepted the smaller settlement
amount because the administration agreed to move quickly
to get the money to the farmers, many of whom are
elderly.

.

_____________________________________________

[Communist]

.
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104044.html)Congress Misses Deadline For
Payments To Black Farmers (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104044.html)

By Krissah Thompson
April 1, 2010

The federal government promised last month to pay more
than $1 billion by the end of March to tens of thousands
of black farmers who had filed decades-old
discrimination complaints against the U.S. Agriculture
Department.

But Congress headed home for a two-week recess without
appropriating the money, and the farmers are frustrated
that the agreement's March 31 deadline was not met. The
White House and congressional leaders say they want to
pay the restitution, but farmers in the case say the
government has been slow to deliver.

"The administration announced this settlement like this
was all over, but we haven't gotten a dime," said John
Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers
Association. "Right now, it's planting time, and we
thought we would have the funds in time for this
season."

Boyd said he is sure the government and the farmers will
be able to agree on an extension to the settlement,
which compensates black farmers who were unfairly denied
farm operating loans. But he is worried that with a
tight budget and busy schedule, the farmers' case --
known as Pigford -- will continue to be overlooked when
Congress returns.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack sent letters last
month to congressional leaders, who have been embroiled
with health care legislation, asking them to appropriate
money for the settlement, and said this week that
resolving cases of discrimination is a department
priority.

The White House is also "working with Congress with some
urgency to get this done as fast as possible," deputy
press secretary Bill Burton said.

Native American farmers, who filed an unresolved lawsuit
alleging discrimination against the USDA in 1999, are
watching the Pigford settlement closely. Court
proceedings in the case of Native American farmers,
known as Keepseagle, have been put on hold while they
negotiate with the government. The deadline for a
settlement in their case is April 21.

Late last week, Rep. Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich.) and Rep.
Tom Cole (R-Okla.) -- co-chairmen of the Congressional
Native American Caucus -- sent a joint letter to Vilsack
and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. asking for an
update on the case and saying Native American farmers
and ranchers had "lost substantial revenues and lands
that had been in their families for generations" because
of years of "offensive discrimination."

The Keepseagle case is not contingent on congressional
approval, unlike Pigford, and if the settlement deadline
is not met, the case could go to trial in district
court.

"All our clients seek is to have their claims
compensated at a level that is comparable to the
settlement in the Pigford case," said Joe Sellers, lead
attorney for the Native American farmers. "There's still
several weeks before the stay is due to expire where we
can make progress. I know our clients are frustrated,
[but] they haven't given up hope."

© 2010 The Washington Post Company

.

[Communist]

.
Anyone else notice how completely useless the UFW have been on this issue?
It's repulsive, especially considering how they literally gush over how wonderful Obama is.

.